Описание
btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete
FAQ
Is Azure Linux the only Microsoft product that includes this open-source library and is therefore potentially affected by this vulnerability?
One of the main benefits to our customers who choose to use the Azure Linux distro is the commitment to keep it up to date with the most recent and most secure versions of the open source libraries with which the distro is composed. Microsoft is committed to transparency in this work which is why we began publishing CSAF/VEX in October 2025. See this blog post for more information. If impact to additional products is identified, we will update the CVE to reflect this.
EPSS
5.5 Medium
CVSS3
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete In reada we BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could be unkind since we aren't holding a lock on the extent leaf and thus could get a transient incorrect answer. In walk_down_proc we also BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could happen if we have extent tree corruption. Change that to return -EUCLEAN. In do_walk_down() we catch this case and handle it correctly, however we return -EIO, which -EUCLEAN is a more appropriate error code. Finally in walk_up_proc we have the same BUG_ON(refs == 0), so convert that to proper error handling. Also adjust the error message so we can actually do something with the information.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete In reada we BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could be unkind since we aren't holding a lock on the extent leaf and thus could get a transient incorrect answer. In walk_down_proc we also BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could happen if we have extent tree corruption. Change that to return -EUCLEAN. In do_walk_down() we catch this case and handle it correctly, however we return -EIO, which -EUCLEAN is a more appropriate error code. Finally in walk_up_proc we have the same BUG_ON(refs == 0), so convert that to proper error handling. Also adjust the error message so we can actually do something with the information.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete In reada we BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could be unkind since we aren't holding a lock on the extent leaf and thus could get a transient incorrect answer. In walk_down_proc we also BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could happen if we have extent tree corruption. Change that to return -EUCLEAN. In do_walk_down() we catch this case and handle it correctly, however we return -EIO, which -EUCLEAN is a more appropriate error code. Finally in walk_up_proc we have the same BUG_ON(refs == 0), so convert that to proper error handling. Also adjust the error message so we can actually do something with the information.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: b ...
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: btrfs: clean up our handling of refs == 0 in snapshot delete In reada we BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could be unkind since we aren't holding a lock on the extent leaf and thus could get a transient incorrect answer. In walk_down_proc we also BUG_ON(refs == 0), which could happen if we have extent tree corruption. Change that to return -EUCLEAN. In do_walk_down() we catch this case and handle it correctly, however we return -EIO, which -EUCLEAN is a more appropriate error code. Finally in walk_up_proc we have the same BUG_ON(refs == 0), so convert that to proper error handling. Also adjust the error message so we can actually do something with the information.
EPSS
5.5 Medium
CVSS3